Should Sneakers move?
July 25th, 2007 by 
Alica
On Aug. 6, the city council will consider a conditional use permit for Sneakers bar.
Right now, Sneakers is in the Brandon Plaza, above Family Floors & Furniture. Sneakers’ owners want to build a new Sneakers just to the south and rear of Splitrock Square, near True Value.
Some folks who live on Kirkwood Boulevard oppose this move because they say the noise from the bar, and proposed beer garden, will disturb them. Others say the proposed location is a better place for a bar than a second-story location across the street from the high school.
What do you think? The council will hear public comment at the Aug. 6 meeting. You can show up and say how you feel, or you can contact your council person, or City Hall, ahead of time. Or you can post your comments on this blog.
Should Sneakers move or not? And if so, is the proposed location a good place for them to move? The meeting will start at 7 p.m. Aug. 6 at City Hall.
Posted in Uncategorized | 
July 25th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Would the bar owners like to have a bar butting up to their backyard? I doubt it. No brainer. There is plenty of appropriate land in Brandon that won’t interfere with residential living.
July 26th, 2007 at 8:12 am
The owners of Sneakers should have the opportunity to grow thier business. They want to add to thier menu giving us in Brandon more choices on places to go for dinner as well as for fun. The current location has no room for them to expand thier kitchen and the atmosphere. Mark is trying to establish a nice place to go where he can offer more choices to the community where are choices are so limited to begin with. I know I’m not the only who is so fed up with the service at one of are only other choices in town (I wont name the establishment most will know)that I can’t wait for this to get approved and give me another option.
I do understand the neighbors are concerned however the noise they think it will put out is nothing compared to the roar the airconditioners will be putting out in the new building no matter what kind of business moves in. I think another concern I heard was brought up was trafic in the neighborhood, however common sense tells me people are not going to be driving down those streets anymore then they do now unless they live on those streets. The D&D and VFW have both been located with several residential neighbors with what seems to be no problems.
In my opinion the people of Brandon need to stand behind Mark Fonder and support a much needed change giving all of us more options in Brandon.
July 26th, 2007 at 9:45 am
I tend to agree with the sneakers supportor. We need to have young business people willing to expand their establishments. Thats all part of growth.
As for the issue of noise, easy solution, build a sound barrier between the outdoor area and the houses. This is nothing new to anyone who is familiar with construction. A sound wall can devirt any noise from the residential area.
As for traffic, Don’t understand that concern as main access will be from splitrock.
I will stand behind the new owner of sneakers on this one, our planning and zonning commission should have approved this one with some stipulations, sound barrier wall.
July 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Lets give them a chance to improve their business.They have been here a very short time and have done an excellent job of cleaning the bar up and providing great service and taking a risk operating a business.Besides if this was such a big concern it should have been discussed by city council when they approved the building plans in the first place. As far as noise I dont remember the guests in the two large motels complain because of large amounts of noise coming from Tailgators. Keep the town growing with new business and people!!
July 26th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
The D&D and the VFW have NO backyard neighbors and NO front yard neighbors, what are you talking about? There’s one side yard neighbor across the parking lot, and he bought the house knowing the VFW was there.
Hotel noise, you’re killing me. You have to compare apples to apples. Do people OWN and pay taxes on a hotel room? Do they live there every day? They rent the room, knowing there’s a restaurant next door.
I’d bet if it was YOUR home, you wouldn’t want it that close. If you don’t mind it being there, put your money where your mouth is and offer to buy their house.
July 26th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
You live live next to a b2 and b3 lot. Dont know how long you have lived there but its zoned b2 and b3. Yes there are developers that would be intersted in buying homes next to comercial zoned areas. Brandon’s chamber of commerace talks about By Brandon, Dine Brandon, Stay Brandon do not restrict Brandon businesses from expanding. Becareful what you wish for, if they are not allowd to move you don’t know what type of business might move in.
July 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I agree 110% with the last comment - I couldn’t have said it better myself; Hope our elected officials are paying attention
July 26th, 2007 at 8:50 pm
So, it’s all about the business’ in Brandon? And the residents are a distant second?There is a reason residential, business and commercial are separated. Cohesive living is a must in a growing city.
If they want to expand, that’s great, but irritating the neighbors is a bad start. Isn’t there another place to relocate?
If the city starts always putting business first and residents second, it’s the business’ that will be hurt when the people turn their back on them.
How about a vet clinic with boarding there? Or a RC racetrack with whinning engines all day and evening? How about a bar that wants to add sand volleyball? How about a paintball course? Garbage hauler? Strip club? How do you feel about restricting those? Different story? I bet so, if it’s your backyard.
My point is there are MORE suitable places in Brandon to locate a bar.
July 27th, 2007 at 5:43 am
OK looking at this map — http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Brandon,+SD+57005&ie=UTF8&ll=43.591302,-96.570286&spn=0.001605,0.003728&t=h&z=18&om=1 — there seems to be no residential property touching the parking lot of where Sneakers would be built. There actually seems to be some business already acting like a buffer between Splitrock Square and the house. Also it looks like the only entrance is Splitrock so traffic is not going to go down Knollwood when leaving Brandon.
July 27th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Susan—- sorry but our city council does not seperate business from residential. I remember just recently that the council approved a residence in a business, it was in a photo business, that was just 4 months ago. That was another one Mr. Buck should have excused his vote from as his firm was involved.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:02 am
Always,
Well, our council is a whole ‘nuther issue. Interesting about Mr. Buck. (how many times has that happened?) I do however believe a photo business with normal hours is different than a bar.
July 27th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Since this is already a commercial zoned area and has been the residential owners there maybe should have thought about that either when they bought the house, or if that was prior to the area being zoned commercial, they should have objected at that point.
Having the new Sneakers move in would be a lot better then say a 24 hour porn store, which could always happen just ask the people of Tea. But then I guess there wouldn’t ba a noise issue would there?
July 27th, 2007 at 9:26 am
This is really a no brainer - Susan. Sneakers moving in is nothing like the buisnesses you listed in comment number 8. Their clientel are mostly blue collared, sports orientated, older people who have beers and burger or wings after work or bowling/golfing/softball. The new owners have done a great job giving the people of Brandon another choice of where to go in Brandon. Relocate to the commercially zoned established property and if you don’t support the bar then don’t go their. The complaint about noise will not be an issue as they have been in compliance of all established city ordances and will continue to do so.
P.S. the comment # 12 is pretty funny but also food for thought
July 27th, 2007 at 10:00 am
This whole thing is not about letting a business grow. Nobody is against that. It’s about following zoning rules which for the most part have been set up to protect residents who live there and sleep there. This area is not zoned for that type of business.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:12 am
What do these residents think Sneakers is going do on the patio? People sitting, visiting and eating..Not a dance floor with blasting music and a DJ. What about having some restrictions placed? Closing the deck at 10 pm, privacy fence, etc. Come on! The deck will only be open for a few months a year anyway…are these concerns really valid? Let Brandon grow and get with the times…Brandon needs options to keep people in town instead of having to go to Sioux Falls!
July 27th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I am behind this move 100%. I guarantee the noise will not be an issue. I frequent Sneakers (during busy hours and down times) and have never been able to hear any noise outside of the bar.
I think the people not for this move need to realize that change happens in life, deal with it. This is a young prosperous couple trying to grow a business and better our community. We should all be able to grow in any business, and Mark’s hands are tied in the location he is currently in. Sneakers caters to every type of customer, sports fans, social organizations, the blue collar, and Mark is trying to expand his space and give his clientel even more options. As a business owner you have to keep up with the times and Sneakers has out grown there current location.
Looking at the map above the houses are not even close, and with no exit onto your street I do not see what the complaints are about. If anything you should be happy about this because you can now walk over and enjoy some wings and frosty beer while you catch any pro or college football game on the NCAA package and the NFL ticket. Bottom line; who are you to hold some one back from the goals in life? You dont like it, dont come! you will be the one missing out!
July 27th, 2007 at 10:22 am
Please keep in mind that a few of these homes on kirkwood were purchased when they were built around 1980. I’m not positive when TO haas was put in there but These homeowners did not put up their 8 foot privacy fences up until after TO Haas left, and Lee Schelling started operating from the site.
As for the map picture link that was put up, I don’t know when that picture was taken but it is not accurate. If you pull in the Pizza Ranch you can drive straight thru to Expressway. That means that parking lot is open from rushmore to Cedar.
I think the sound barriers are a great idea but who flips the bill for that? It shouldn’t be the home owners. Let alone what an ugly thing to see.
I know that Mr. Buck has excused himself from the vote, but has anyone considered Mr. Ruben backing away? Sneakers always has Hussets Specials and events at their current location? That might need to be considered as a conflict of interest as well.
One of the other things people need to think about is Drunk drivers are not only out at night, they are out in the middle of the day. as well as these people’s children. A drunk driver is going to pick a side street before the main street to drive down. The people leaving this bar will have access to quickly get and stay off of Splitrock ave, either by taking cedar to kirkwood going north to stay in town or south to head to Valley. and they just have to cross it to get to the residential on the west side of splitrock.
What about property values? I don’t know anything about how this works, but I know I wouldn’t buy a house that close to such an active bar, so is this bar moving going to effect them trying to sell their homes? or will it help them. I think it should be reviewed for the home owners and it would be best if not done by someone affiliated with Lee Schelling.
July 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
To the other posters that say it is a distance from there to these houses, it is a three minute walk from kirkwood blvd to the high school. so if you ask me that is close enough.
July 27th, 2007 at 11:44 am
At a girl Alica, this is a good topic for getting people to respond, you need to think of contorversial topics like this more often. GOOD JOB>
GOOD LUCK SNEAKERS IN YOUR NEW LOCATION
July 27th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Im going to throw another angle at this topic. I like to go to the races and spend my money in Brandon. I would really like to go to Sneakers and check out there food and drink that they have to offer. There is one reason why i cant even go there. That reason is two sets of stairs and a landing. You ask “Why should that matter?”. The reason it matters is because i am in a power wheelchair and its to heavy to lift up all those stairs. If you give the owners a chance to move it will be built to ADA codes and ALL people will have a chance to hang out with friends and family and watch games on TV and socialize. Im sure im not the first or last person in a wheelchair, who feels like where missing out when we cant even get to the front door.
LETS THINK OF ALL PEOPLE WHEN MAKING THIS CHOICE
July 27th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Gupp says: “You dont like it, dont come! you will be the one missing out! ”
I doubt they’ll be missing out, it’s in their back yard. I don’t understand why you refuse to understand the reason for resistance….It’s NOT that we don’t think they need a new location (we do) it’s the placement of the new location.
What’s with all the references to “blue collar?” Profiling? You think white collar behaves badly more often?
July 27th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Seriously William?
now who is the one profiling with the white collar reference?
If you agree they need a new location than you should be wise enough to understand the reasons this should happen. We will see August 6th.
No matter where a bar moves to they are always going to create conflicts. Soon you will see that this is just a small bump in the road that Sneakers will overcome on their way to providing our community with a nice, clean, enviromentally friendly sports bar!
July 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I just hope that Mark hasn’t been over sold on this location.My guess is his rent will be triple from what it is now, plus paying for that liquor license and new funishings. It will take a lot of sales to make those payments. A new location does not mean more business. I hope he’s had some good advice.
July 27th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Gupp…explain enviromentally friendly sports bar to me?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:37 pm
William…….would you like me to draw you a picture?
Like I stated earlier, Sneakers has out grown its current space and the opportunity to grow at a new location has arisen. Who knows when another opportunity like this will happen for them. Just wait and see the noise will not be an issue.
July 27th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I don’t need a picture I need a verbal explanation. What are they doing to make it environmentally friendly?
July 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Gupp,
Like I said earlier, it’s great they need a new place, I’m all for that. How about a place that doesn’t border residential? What stake do you have in this building/business?
July 27th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Does it mean anything that the Brandon planning and zoning committee voted no on this? They obviously heard all the testimony and felt there would problems with this location.
July 29th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
The young couple that runs Sneakers has now been there long enough for their customers to see that they know how to draw the line between selling indiscriminately to people who shouldn’t be drinking (or drinking any more) and running a business that you can take your family to for a meal. I’ve walked in, and immediately out, of other sports bars because of noise or rowdiness; and that has never happened at Sneakers under the current owners. I would bet that they would take whatever steps are necessary to keep the noise-both inside and on the patio-to a level where they don’t have to answer complaints from neighbors and/or police.
I’ve also looked at the proposed location, and it sure looks to me like there’s a lot between the building and the homes (storage buildings, campers, fences, trees).
Although you can’t guarantee that the current owners will always run the place, the city can insure that the business operates responsibly by putting restrictions on their permit to control potential problems such as noise. If the bar causes problems, the city has a lot of room to control it through either revocation of their permit to operate or its annual consideration of their liquor license.
I say let them grow into this logical new location.
July 30th, 2007 at 11:55 am
it will never cease to amaze me how quicly the NIMBY corwd will quash growth. if find this controversy no different than the person who complains about the high cost of gas, but doesn’t want a refinery built in elk point due to “enviromental concerns” or the person who is all for putting criminals behind bars just make sure the prison is built “somewhere else”. How many of the people so opposed to Sneakers new location have lamented in the past over lack of places to enjoy a night out in Brandon? Brandon, Sioux falls, this entire area of SD is on the cusp of greatness. The growth that will accompany this, will come with some growing pains. Failure to deal with it, or worse, outright oppostion will accomplish nothing other than sending it somewhere else, and leaving us wondering what happened.
July 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
I don’t have a problem with Brandon Growing, I don’t have a problem with a building going up where they propose this is built. My problem is, the small children that live on that road, the property values that I don’t see being considered, I walked thru the present location of Sneakers Friday night, I got to see loud music being played by the cars outside, yelling from the present balcony they have. so if it is already a problem you are telling that expanding it’s size is going to improve the issue?
And as for the people objecting to brandon growing yet not liking the idea of it doing so in their back yard, you are wrong, Brandon can grow all it wants, I don’t buy my groceries there unless I’m in a pinch and need one more thing for dinner, I rather drive to sioiux falls east side, where I have hyvee, menards, shopko, k-mart. I live in brandon and work in sioux falls, so I get everything I need from Sioux Falls, it is less expencive there and there is always a better selection. Brandon is a bedroom community to me and will never be more than that.
If we keep worring about the bussiness’s and not the people of brandon, we will find a bunch of empty store fronts, because there will be no more people left to buy from the stores.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:36 pm
To hello: Do you like the snow removed from in front of your house? If your house were burglarized, would you like the police to catch the bad guys? Do you like clean water to come out of your faucets?
Sales taxes collected in Brandon help pay for all of those things. If you don’t shop in Brandon, you are literally asking your neighbors to foot the bill for the services you enjoy as a resident. Would you do that for them?
Food for thought.
July 30th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Why is it that a issue always has to be black and white. Why can’t people ever see grey and compromise??? It’s either my way or the highway. I too, disagree with “hello.” We need to support our business. It’s a two way street.
Boards like planning and zoning were put into place for a reason everyone. Growth must be orderly, and buffer zones between residential and commercial are vital to a successful town!
No one here is saying they think Sneakers shouldn’t have a new place. Just put it in a MORE appropriate place that’s all. What is it about this particular location that is the ONLY place to go?
July 30th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
I do remember a neighborhood successfully thwarted a proposed bar along Holly, in the strip mall that is 1948 now. Probably about 10-12 years ago. City council took planning and zoning’s recommendation and denied the request. It will be interesting to see this councils vote,,, For the business or for the people.
July 30th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
To hello: HELLO!!!! Not shoppng in Brandon is putting the nail on the coffin for this community that is predicted to be the third largest city in South Dakota by 2020 … that’s only 13 years down the road … and the city won’t simply grow with homes. We need businesses. If Sioux Falls is your answer for everything, why not sell your home and take up residence there!
July 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
No offence to all of you posters but I see where hello is coming from, we are close to SF, most of the people that live here work in SF. Brandon does need to compete with SF to keep it’s business’ going. For example why doesn’t our Lewis honor the SF lewis’ ads. We don’t have anywhere to buy clothing here. So if we need something we have to go into SF do the shopping. I do agree we need to spend money here to keep it alive. But I do see where we need to be a bit more competitive. And Maybe I am stupid but where to my property taxes and utility payments go?
In 13 years I fear that Brandon is going to be another side of SF. Not saying we will become SF, i’m just saying we will be a suburb of it. It takes me less time to get home than it does some of the people I work with that live in SF.
Anyways this is off subject, I agree with the people that live on Kirkwood, I wouldn’t want a bar that close to me, and I think even more than having it put there was how they approached building it in the first place. I understand there was some of this done behind closed doors, and then someone caught on that it wasn’t being done by the book. But from some of these other posts, I’m taking it that’s not uncommon here in Brandon.
I think it will be sad if those people do choose to move, to me it shows that brandon didn’t care about the homeowners that have may have been here 20+ years. but then again maybe the city would like to buy these homes from them, and make it easier for them to move.
I think everyone that goes to this meeting needs to keep in the back of their minds that this could be their back yard, and would they want it there?
July 30th, 2007 at 5:38 pm
To sara: Eighty-some percent of your property taxes goes to the school district. About 13 percent goes to the city, and the rest goes to the county.
So figure, what is 13 percent of your property taxes? A few hundred bucks, tops? Then figure what it would cost you in street lights, snow removal, clean water, police protection, parks and other stuff if you had to contract for that on your own.
I’m just saying.
July 30th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Thank you Alica, I do apreciate the break down. I’ve always had an idea of where the money went, I think everyone does, I just did not know the % break down.
I thank you for not making me look stupid for asking the question.
After my last post I thought about this shopping thing, it really isn’t that far off topic as I originally thought. But I think Brandon needs a little more of something, we have a grocery store, gas stations, and restruants, and bars… I don’t mean to forget the specialty shops and services we have. we need more stores like clothing stores to keep brandon alive. Or we are just asking people to go to SF. And I realize it must be hard to be a new business owner, therefore I won’t be able to help Brandon out there.
But we do need to start thinking about where the locations for such places will go, I don’t know where we can fit a walmart. (just an example) I know I wouldn’t want that next door to me either.
But if anything I guess I would have to pray that some sucker would want to buy my house so I could move. But I think that is one thing that is being missed with everyone telling the people on Kirkwood to move. They can’t just move, they have to sell the house they have first. Well I assume they don’t want two houses with payments.
And that would go back to these property values for these folks, I know it has been mentioned a few times but no one has really said what would happen with them. So I would be curious of that too.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Let them move if they want to. I don’t think the surrounding houses will be a problem. I think pizza ranch is more dangerous than sneakers. Have you seen those delivery people speed their asses off all over the place??? I’d be more concerned of them running someone over than a bar being noisy. You just have to understand this place is growing with more business than anything, and you just have to deal with them being by you, because this town will not stop growing.
July 30th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
To, ….,
We don’t have to deal with just any business’ by us. That’s what a democracy, petitons (majority of neighborhood) and open government are all about. We’re not talking about any business, we’re talking about a Bar and that’s different. I have business’ near me and don’t mind, but I would mind a bar.
July 31st, 2007 at 7:15 am
Sounds like Wes needs a bar next to his house. Or maybe a turkey growing operation, (I’ll call it a petting zoo) My point is,there’s a proper place for everything. We vote our city leaders in to make sure this happens. Hopefully they pay attention to wants and rights of residents and not the whims of developers.
July 31st, 2007 at 9:28 am
I have been reading all of the Blogs written. Here are my comments - the entrance & exit will be to S. Splitrock Blvd., possibly thru the alley to Cedar Street.
When subjects leave other bar establishments, they are driving thru residential. Other establishments, they get on a busy highway.
One establishment use to be a grocery store in a residential neighborhood, but then closed and a bar was put in it’s place in a residential neighborhood. Another establishment is surrounded by apartments. At a time this establishment had bands and other entertainment at night.
For the noise - the location for the new Sneakers is over a block away from the fence separating the residents on Kirkwood. A storage unit is in between and will absorb alot of the noise, along with the air conditioners. To the south of the patio, is another fence, separating a business (that will not be open at night).
As someone else has blogged, regarding the patio, this will only be open a few months out of the year. Noise would be minimal at the most.
The new owners care about their customers and keeping their business thriving. They need to be given a chance to expand to show Brandon that they care about the community.
What about PACE Manufacturing (true it is not a bar), but houses were built around that, semis are coming late into the night or early in the morning. What do the homeowner’s think of that? Has PACE tried to remedy the problems - YES!
I’m sure that Mark is willing to make this work.
BRANDON - LET’S GIVE THEM THE CHANCE!!!!!
July 31st, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Have the neighbors thought that they can just walk to get something to eat or or have a drink and they would not even have to drive!!
I would certainly like Sneakers to move to this location.
July 31st, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Please someone answer the question that has been asked over and over….why just this one particular location????
August 1st, 2007 at 6:48 am
Corrections to Kota’s: You say the location is over a block away–
Actually its 44 yards from the back (east) wall to the fence. Less than 1/2 a football field.
About the storage building between them to absorb noise– The proprosed patio will be along the west fence, in direct line of sight to the homeowners deck. That will channel the noise like a megaphone.
You mentioned the patio will be open only a few months out of the year—-
Those are the same months everybody else uses their decks and back yards.
August 1st, 2007 at 6:51 am
Correction to #45: The patio will be along the “south” fence in direct line of sight to the home owners deck.
August 1st, 2007 at 7:43 am
I heard a story last night that might put things into proper prospective. The property is zoned b2 or b3, what ever, that allows for a retail sales estabishment to move in with out any conditional use. If sneakers is not allowed to move in, I heard that Annabels II is looking for a place on the east side of Sioux falls and Brandon would work great. Lounge or Sex shop???????????
August 1st, 2007 at 8:30 am
Always listening,
Your story doesn’t do a thing for me, however cute you think it is.
Here’s a little perspective since you brought Annabells up….
Bar = noise, 2:00 closing time noise (car doors slamming, yelling, etc.) intoxicated patrons. No escape for neighbors, ie: they can’t just not go there because of the patio.
Annabells = no patio thus no noise. Choice of patronage. Neighbors don’t have to go there. And it’s not shoved down there throat.
You’re being so unrealistic it’s ridiculous, you really think our city leaders would put in a sex shop across from a high school, you need to get real. scare tactics as usual which is what Brandon business promoters are getting very good at.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:12 am
No scare tactics, not meant to be, just repeating what I heard. As for the school, I belive the ordince limits where certain businesses can be placed based on distance which is 500 feet. I think thats more than 500 feet. As for what our council would do, I would’nt put anything past them, there pro business.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:39 am
WHY….
If you would have done your research you would have noticed a bar is zoned for B-3. This means that Sneakers could move next door to their home which is currently Brandon body shop and welding. That means it would only be about 20 FEET from their house? If you do not want Sneakers to move in to proposed location, where do you suggest since options are very limited on b-3 zoning? Check your zoning map before you respond.
http://brandon.govoffice.com/vertical/Sites/{23CB10F0-8C35-4CA4-9AD1-B693F0F58E76}/uploads/{D471B45F-507F-46D7-96AF-880395A5C1C9}.PDF
August 1st, 2007 at 11:31 am
you should’ve checked your link, it doesn’t work
August 1st, 2007 at 11:55 am
http://brandon.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={563B94AB-31AA-4EA3-A6E8-3BEC69667D20}
Click on zoning map on this link and then you can get back to me with all YOUR intelligent knowledge?
August 3rd, 2007 at 6:22 am
[quote]Actually its 44 yards from the back (east) wall to the fence[/quote]
So that would be 2-3 house lots away.
As far as the patio, I have been to plenty of establishments that have patios — most of them have people sitting on them drinking and talking — not a lot of loud noise. Of course, the city council could put a noise restriction on it and say no music on the patio that would cut down on patio noise.
August 3rd, 2007 at 7:00 am
If the city council has a conditional use request before it that means there are potential problems with the site, thus they have to apply for a special permit.
A CUP is a discretionary permit that may or may not be allowed according to the intent of the zoning law and so the effects don’t negatively impact surrounding properties.
Things taken into consideration would be: building placement and size, characteristic of the use, traffic generation, noise, hours of operation, adequacy of parking, circulation, proposed merchandise, landscaping and overall compatibility of the use with adjoining properties.
As you can see on our city website, the planning and zoning committee has voted this permit down.
I would have to vote no for the simple fact that if I were buying a house in Brandon I would not spend an average of 150,000 on a house with a bar within 44 yards of the home. That is a negative impact on surrounding homeowners, so that’s my guess as to why P & Z voted no.
There has never been a bar constructed in Brandon (when houses already exist) that close to residential housing, I think it would set a precedence for others to follow and that is not a good thing for city growth. You’ll get the “well sneakers got to do it so you have to let me” and I think they’d be right.
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:29 am
Maybe we should buy the b3 lot of howard stohls and build the bar there! No problems with truely having the bar next door?
August 3rd, 2007 at 11:46 am
enough said,
I don’t understand, can you be more specific on what you mean? Who’s Howard Stohl and what problems?
August 3rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Did anyone read sign in front of sneakers it is for sale????? We might have one less bar?
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:05 pm
To what: Howard Stohl owns Brandon Body Shop at 1420 Cedar Street. The corner where the shop is located (Cedar and Kirkwood) is:
1. Already zoned to accommodate a bar, so no conditional use permit would be necessary; and
2. Closer to the Kirkwood homes than the proposed location for Sneakers.
August 3rd, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Well that’s confusing. Why is it zoned that way but closer to residential?
Paul, maybe it’s the property, not the actual bar for sale?
August 4th, 2007 at 12:40 am
Brandon planing and zoning set that corner up to be zoned b-3 so if they want they could have a bar really close to their house with NO conditional use permit! Thank you alica for pointing that out. Everyone that is blogging on this should step back and really take a close look at the zoning map. It could be a lot closer than what is proposed. The fence always looks greener on the other side?????????????????
August 5th, 2007 at 12:13 am
I should point out that the Brandon Planning & Zoning Commission is an advisory board only. Their decisions are not binding. They simply make recommendations to the City Council, who makes the final decisions on any requests.
To find out why the corner there was zoned for commercial, you’d have to go back into the City Council minutes from way back. I can’t remember which was there first, the business or the houses. I do remember a time before the houses were there, though.
Although it does make sense to have commercial property on that corner, since it is commercial from Splitrock Boulevard along Cedar Street to the east.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
I think the current B3 zoning was for businesses that existed before the zoning laws were implemented. Car repairs are only allowed in a B3 zoning, so it makes sense that they ‘grandfathered’ those businesses in. The conditional use permit for B2 zoning seems to apply to businesses that generally can be a problem - due to smell, noise, late hours, etc. I think the bar is an issue because of the potential noise and the late night hours. (I wonder if the current bar was built before the zoning laws were created - does anyone know?) Brandon does not seem to have any noise ordinances - except for loud cars and barking dogs. We all know how well those are enforced… I think any business should be allowed to be built as long as no noise or smells are created that impact the neighbors. You do have control over where you look, but not what you hear or smell.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Well Sneakers won’t be moving for now anyway. They did not have a quarm vote for it. I congratulate 2 of our council members for siding with the residents on this issue: Kathy and Dan!! See, some of our council realize they were voted in by the residents and are there to represent them!!!
August 7th, 2007 at 11:48 am
Does anyone find it odd that there were only 2 residents present to speak against the conditional use permit? If any of the other neighbors thought it was going to be a huge issue, where were they? Not there because it isn’t…and two people who are trying to help Brandon grow are left scrambling….by the way…who is gonna pay to have Sneakers Liquor License moved BACK to old location. Wow…you guys really messed this one up big time.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
And what kind of crock was it that now some sort of super majority was needed? Quorum majority? The whole thing smells to me. if Mr Buck recused himself then the new # is 5 not 6 and a 3-2 vote should have passed the thing. If not, and his recusal is equivalent to a “no” vote, then the mayor should have been called on to break the tie. You can’t have it both ways, which is what it sounds like happened last night, at least to me. If I’m Harry Buck today, I’ve decided that whether its the right thing to do or not, recusal is a word I’ll no longer use at all. From last night’s results, is it safe to asume that if Mr Buck hadn’t of recused himself the measure would have needed 5 of 6 votes? I think Mark Fonder ought to sue the city for any already invested $$ and let Brandon just rot. Once bitten twice shy, so to speak.
August 7th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Isn’t it interesting that construction work was even started before all of the hurdles had been cleared? Makes you wonder what goes on behind closed doors.
August 7th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Ya Think!!!
August 7th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Wes,
I’m thinking you should ask a city person about your confusion on quorum. They can explain why it (and has been) is the way it is. And Mr. Buck and the others are bound to recuse themselves, are you suggesting he lie? I hope we don’t have a council that would lie.
Sue the city? For what? What does he have invested, I hope nothing since he hadn’t obtained a permit yet. That would be a putting the cart before the donkey now wouldn’t it?
August 7th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
To Wes: Brandon Administrator Dennis Olson explained it to me this way today:
State law requires a quorum (majority) of the City Council members to be present in order to hold a meeting.
But that same quorum doesn’t apply to voting. For voting, state law requires a majority of the council to vote for something in order for it to pass. We have six councilpersons. So four of them would have to vote yes on something for it to pass. In the case of Sneakers on Monday, six councilpersons were present, but Harry Buck recused himself, leaving five people to vote. The vote was 3-2, but state law requires at least four votes for something to pass. That’s why Sneakers’ conditional use permit failed.
August 8th, 2007 at 6:55 am
There is a new plaza being built at the Bluffs…why not put the bar/resturant there?
August 8th, 2007 at 7:33 am
Look back at prior minutes, they have passed items with a 3-2 vote before. Looking back at them, Harry Buck appears to excuse himself alot due to conflicts. Come on Harry if your going to be on the council take a stand one way or the other, quit hiding behind the “conflict of interest BS”.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:44 am
Harry did the right thing. He works for the owner of the property. It would have been an obvious conflict of interest for him to be voting on this issue.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:58 am
I understand the whole majority concept. what I am saying is, that if Mr Buck recusing himself doesn’t change the number needed to form a majority then in this instance his non-vote was equivalent to a “no”. That would make the entire vote a 3-3 tie. Ties are supposed to be broken by the mayor not just chalked up to a defeat and left alone. If his recusal is actually not counted in any way shape or form, then the majority would be 3, as 3 out of 5 is a majority. Like I asked earlier, how is it different to need 4 out of 5 to have a majority but not 5 out of 6 if Mr Buck had voted?
August 8th, 2007 at 9:29 am
#71 Can you point out what has passed on the council with a 3-2 vote?
August 8th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I dont’ remember who or what number asked about other residents not being there… So I will give you my excuse, I was in the hospital having a baby, another child that will be living and playing on that street. I hope that is an excusable situation.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
Congrats on the new birth.
As to people coming down your street — are they going to go out to Splitrock and then turn and go down Cedar before turning on Kirkwood — at closing time? When they hit Splitrock they are going home — now the only ones going down your street will probably be your neighbors — and I think I have seen a couple of them in Sneakers in the past.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:42 pm
I’m not a lawyer, but if you want to read the state statutes, they are online. The council acts as the board of adjustments in Brandon. I believe the one that applies is:
11-4-23. Vote required to reverse or to grant exception or variance. The concurring vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the board of adjustment is necessary to reverse any order, requirement, decision, or determination of the administrative officer, or to decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which the board of adjustment is required to pass under any ordinance, or to effect any variation in an ordinance.
They needed 4 votes to get a two-thirds vote to grant a variance. A simple majority is not enough.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:23 am
It is really upsetting to read the blogs on the Argus side…such negative comments and actually talking about peeing on the neighbors fense…grow up!!!! The people that were against this were not against the people that own the bar…only haveing a bar in their backyard. There are other places in town. And now to suggest buying out the Body Shop to put a bar there…how wrong! Purposely doing this to make the neighbors mad. Check out the new developments in town. There are places that this business would thrive in. Did you consider the Bluffs?
It was said at the council meeting that when Lee bought TO Haas, that he would develope it into storage and office. That is what he brought to the council and the public. It is not the fault of the people that live near by that don’t want a bar. They want to keep it safe and quiet for their families.
August 9th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Fonder has moved on with knowing that the bar cannot be located there, he is now checking the local ordinances to see if he can put an adult bookstore there. Finally another movie store in town.
August 10th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
I would take a sober pornograpic film lover to a bunch of drunken rowdy bar goers anyday…but we all have our standards.
And really, as far as “im gonna show ya! You cain’t tell me where and whats I can puts wheres! I’ll shows ya some naked female and male parts, and that’ll learn ya to not stick up fer yourselves and just falls inta line with what the council wants!” attitude. GROW UP! We all can’t have what we want all the time, and the council, THANKFULLY!!!! FINALLY!!!!! being told NO!!!! by it’s citizenry.
Councilman Buck…why the heck are you even on the council?! You recuse yourself frequently, you have multiple conflicting interests, and that makes you a INEFFECTUAL REPRESENTATIVE! If I lived in your ward, I’d ask you to step aside and let someone in there that doesn’t have your conflicting issues. In a way, Councilman Buck, this whole perfect storm of ineptitude is your fault.
You couldn’t bully Dan Mostek and Kathy Ford as per your normal mode of city business, so any drunken, hot!spicy!caliente!wings and jalapeno popper filled promises that were given to these two very nice bar folks were in vain. No???
Thank God at least 2 of our councilpersons, (with their healthy livers and good cholesterol numbers) had the sense to vote this down.
August 14th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
I agree with #70 - put it out by the Bluffs - that would be great. Eventually that area will grow even more and then there would already be an established bar there. Might even draw some east side Sioux Falls folks!
August 17th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
There are currently no plans for Sneakers to be put in out at The Bluffs. Feel free to contact VanBuskirk if you have any quistions or concerns.
Ryan
361-8322
August 17th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
contact ryan at 361-8322 that is home builders assoc. ? They said i had wrong number?
August 20th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I found this in the city of Brandon Ordinances. I’m not sure, but I think this states the only time a 2/3rds majority is if the city is going to sell property. I don’t know for sure but I think Sneakers 3 to 2 vote is good enough to change the zoning. Also, according to zoning definitions within the city ordinances, I’m not so sure that a bar can’t be in a B2 area.
1-3-14 RECORDING VOTES; THE NUMBER REQUIRED FOR ACTION
The yeas and nays shall be taken upon the passage of all ordinances and upon any proposal to create a liability against the City or for the expenditure or appropriation of its money, and in all other cases at the request of any member, which shall be entered on the journal of its proceedings.
The concurrence of a majority of all the aldermen, shall be necessary to the passage of any such ordinance or proposal.
It shall require a two-thirds vote of all the Aldermen to sell any City property.
August 21st, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Mr. Rogers,
The council must have a quorum to do any business. A quorum is defined as a majority. In Brandon’s case it is always 4 because we have 6 council members. Mr. Buck recused himself, but that has NO bearing on the quorum. If he hadn’t of had personal business with this issue he wouldn’t of had to recuse and could’ve voted. It would have passed (if he would have voted yes) because it would have been 4-2 instead of 3-2. Does that make sense?